• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Skumatz2.ppt
 

Skumatz2.ppt

on

  • 448 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
448
Views on SlideShare
448
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Skumatz2.ppt Skumatz2.ppt Presentation Transcript

    • INTEGRATED PLANNING IN CHALLENGING ENVIRONMENTS Lisa A. Skumatz, Ph.D. Skumatz Economic Research Associates (SERA) 762 Eldorado Drive, Superior, CO 80027 Phone: 303/494-1178 FAX: 303/494-1177 [email_address] © SERA 2007 Presentation to NCRA March 2007
    • INTEGRATED PLANNING
      • Invigorated planning
        • Regulations, consumer demand, responsibility, sustainability interest
        • Planning tools/modeling from energy & leading SW
      • Challenging situations–different economics/options/goals
        • Anchorage: remote; distance from markets; lack of infrastructure / facilities; split citizenship; want a “business case”
          • Advantage – unique backhaul arrangement (ALPAR), interest by Mayor, sustainability coordinator appointed
        • Pitkin County (Aspen): remote; distance from markets; missing key infrastructure; incentives not likely effective for C&D; costs
          • Advantage: historically innovative landfill; flexibility; citizen interest in managing own waste
        • Recently finished Fort Collins (Resource Recycling article)
    • INTEGRATED PLANNING
      • Analysis approach
        • Data collection, forecasting / modeling for local conditions
        • Model costs to agency & key generator groups
        • Local stakeholder advisory group and local interviews
      • 130 program / incentive / policy concepts
        • Lesson from other locations:
          • Approach of diversifying responsibility
          • Local considerations, priorities, solutions, adaptations
        • Specific economics / funding / business analysis & facilities analysis
        • Implementation work
        • Work in progress – not yet complete
    • INTEGRATED PLANNING & NEXT STEPS: SINGLE STREAM PILOT
      • Boulder longstanding PAYT & recycling program
        • Rates: $19, $29, $39 for 1, 2, 3 cans
        • Two-stream, alternate weeks, fully automated
        • Strong existing diversion rates
        • Trash tax, environmental ethic
      • Planned retrofit of MRF to SS  opportunity for new program at similar cost
        • Change to alternating YW, Recy, fully automated
        • Pilot test for procedures, impacts, planning (2,400 homes for > 6 months)
    • SINGLE STREAM PILOT
      • Pilot
        • Collection straightforward; processing tricky
        • 1 main hauler simplified test
      • Evaluation Tasks
        • Set out survey & weights
        • Waste sorts (SF&MF), contamination / education
        • Detailed survey (4 full pages) pilot & NP
        • Rate analysis on PAYT, compost, spring clean-up (rate structure, not rate setting)
    • SINGLE STREAM PILOT
      • Set out & composition
        • Random homes, pilot & control areas
        • Recycling “clean” throughout city
        • Remaining recyclables and YW in trash; computed % by material for “potential” & education
        • Completing pie charts
      • Survey
        • Set out homes plus augmented random sample;
        • Mail survey; planned for 600 responses; received 1300+; analyzing on-going
        • Linking to set outs and weights
    • WASTE SORT
    • SURVEY TOPICS
      • Use of garbage & recycling, how full
      • Changes from pilot
      • YW habits / volumes
      • Food waste habits / volumes
      • Spring clean-up use & changes
      • New options / test acceptability
      • Resulting likely changes in subscription
      • Willingness to pay
      • Recycling goals, service satisfaction
      • Information sources
      • Demographics
      Willing to respond; letters also…
    • SURVEY (4 PAGE BOOKLET)
    • SORT AND SURVEY RESULTS / IMPLICATIONS FOR RESULTS
      • Recycling clean
        • Can pull more containers, especially from campus parties
        • Yard waste high potential; only drop-off opportunities now
        • Significant cardboard remains
      • Preliminary survey says…
        • 2/3 reduced materials for spring cleanup due to pilot
        • Half nothing to dispose for SCU; 1/5 almost nothing
        • 1/8 vs. 1/4 want to keep SCU (clean-up) program
        • 1/3 v. 1/5 needs met without SCU; 1/3 v. 1/4 almost
        • % WTP, subscription shifts (graphs)
        • Almost 3/4 say WTP more to reach goals
    • WILLING TO PAY
    • SUBSCRIPTION SHIFTS – SURVEY BASED (TO BE AUGMENTED WITH SET OUT/SORT DATA)
    • RATE ANALYSIS / RECOMMENDATIONS
      • Detailed cost work & survey/comp input
        • Designed many options; modeled subset
      • Refining PAYT:
        • Options for smaller subscription levels
        • Steepness
        • Subscription prediction from set out, sort, survey
        • Revenue risk issues
      • Charges for compost coll’n
        • Base with extra
        • Fully embedded
      • Spring clean-up
        • Hoped for discontinu-ation; more likely to phase out (with notification). Strong appeal in surveys
        • Pay for use (not “free” / trash tax)
        • Flat vs. variable
      • Options for council consideration next month
        • Providing several options / results
        • Recommendations on program & rate structure
    • INTEGRATED PLANNING
      • Unique challenges – traditional strategies not always suited
        • Use the advantages (goodwill, ALPAR, familiarity)
        • Diversifying responsibility
        • Business case for facilities a key challenge; aggregation
        • Investigating policies, incentives, etc. with eye to what will work locally (e.g. C&D Pitkin; keeping goodwill in Boulder but ratcheting up incentives/integration)
        • Definitely NOT cookie cutter!
      • Planning, coordination a key to avoid failure (and then more delays)
      • Supportive councils, invigorated volunteers invaluable
      • Keep posted on progress…
    • CONTACT: Lisa A. Skumatz, Ph.D. Principal, SERA, Inc. 762 Eldorado Drive, Superior, CO 80027 Phone: 303/494-1178 email: [email_address] www.serainc.com And Econservation Institute Services: Integrated program planning / evaluation; PAYT, rates/program/incentives & policy analysis, workshops
    • PAYT / VARIABLE RATES: Update & Large City Differences Lisa A. Skumatz, Ph.D. Skumatz Economic Research Associates (SERA) 762 Eldorado Drive, Superior, CO 80027 Phone: 303/494-1178 FAX: 303/494-1177 [email_address] © SERA 2007 Presentation to NCRA March 2007
    • COUNTS OF PROGRAMS NATIONWIDE (SERA) Source: SERA studies, © SERA all rights reserved
    • 101- 200 PAYT/VR communities 51- 100 PAYT/VR communities 21 - 50 PAYT/VR communities Key 1 - 20 PAYT/VR communities More than 200 PAYT/VR communities Source: Skumatz Economic Research Associates Inc., Superior, CO, 2006 6survey © SERA, all rights reserved PAY-AS-YOU-THROW (PAYT)/ VARIABLE RATES COMMUNITIES SERA’s 2006 survey found almost 7,100 PAYT/VR communities and only 2 states without programs SERA’s 2006 survey found 25% of population with PAYT available.
    • 41-50% of communities with PAYT 31-40% of communities with PAYT 21 – 30% of communities with PAYT Key 11 – 20% of communities with PAYT 0.1 – 10% of communities with PAYT More than 50% of communities with PAYT Source: Skumatz Economic Research Associates Inc., Superior, CO, 2006 6survey © SERA, all rights reserved PAYT/VARIABLE RATES COMMUNITY PERCENTAGES BY STATE
    • PAYT PENETRATION & GROWTH MN, WA, OR, CA, AZ Pct of population AK, AL, CO, LA, MD, NJ, OH, SD, UT, VT, WV AR, CA, FL, IA, KS, ME, MI, MN, MO, MT, NC, SC, VA Pct growth in towns AK, AL, AZ, DC, FL, HI, KY, LA, MD, MS, ND, NM, NV, OK, RI, SD, TN, WV, WY CA, IA, MI, MN, WI Growth (97-06) DC, HI, MS, KY; AK, AL, FL, KS, LA, NM, NV, OK, TX, VA, WY MN, WA, OR; WI, NH; MA, IA, CA, MI, NY Pct of towns AL, DC, HI, MS, KY, LA, NM, OK, TN, WY CA, IA, MN, NY, PA, WA, WI Number of towns Lowest Highest
    • 41-50% of population with PAYT 31-40% of population with PAYT 21 – 30% of population with PAYT Key 11 – 20% of population with PAYT 0.1 – 10% of population with PAYT More than 50% of population with PAYT Source: Skumatz Economic Research Associates Inc., Superior, CO, 2006 6survey © SERA, all rights reserved PERCENT OF STATE POPULATION WITH PAYT/VR AVAILABLE BY STATE SERA’s 2006 survey found 25% of US population with PAYT available.
    • DIVERSION IMPACTS
      • Larger impact on recycling than any other recycling-related factor
        • Impacts both curbside & dropoff recycling
        • Encourages YW separation and source reduction
        • Total impact 17% less at landfill
      • Nationwide tonnage
      • reduction of 6.5
      • million TPY
      Source: Skumatz, PAYT in US: 2006 Update & Analyses, 2006, © SERA/EPA 2006 all rights reserved
    • ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
      • With the PAYT adoption to date, annual emissions equivalents are:
        • 61-109 million MBTU
        • 7.4-13.3 million MT CO2 Equiv
        • 2.1-3.8 million MT Carbon Equiv
        •  Value of $30-76 Billion annually…!
      • Effective element toward sustainable communities
        • Responsible for ¾ of impact in one city
      Source: Skumatz, PAYT in US: 2006 Update & Analyses, 2006, © SERA/EPA 2006 all rights reserved
    • PAYT IN LARGE COMMUNITIES
      • SERA survey of largest 100 US communities
        • Population 190K to 4.5 million+
        • Queried on PAYT, systems, diversion, programs, collection, facilities, hauler arrangements, etc.
      • Installed 1944 (Spokane) through 2003
      • More common in smaller large cities (385K v. 645K pop); disposal fees about $33/ton
      • 90% variable can
        • Rest hybrid (base half 60gal, half 90gal)
        • Smallest container 12g – 64 g (base fee $9-$19)
    • PAYT IN LARGE COMMUNITIES – MORE LIKELY TO HAVE…
      • ADFs
      • Bottle bill
      • C&D programs
      • E-waste programs
      • C/S Recycling and YW; and mandatory recycling
      • Food waste options
      • Same day coll’n, 1/wk
      • MF eligible
      • More materials
      • Embedded fees for recycling
      • Single stream recycling; fully automated trash
      • Larger recycling containers
      • Hauler collection
      • Education handled by city
      • More likely to be college town
      • High income, high housing value
    • PAYT IN LARGE COMMUNITIES
      • Collection:
        • Municipal collection for more than half – rest franchised or contracted
        • 45% manual collection, 27% SA, 58% automated (multiples ok)
    • PAYT IN LARGE COMMUNITIES
      • Relation to other programs
        • All had C/S recycling; 60% also had dropoff
        • Recycling fee $0-$2.50; most embedded – 10-15% line itemed
        • City gets revenues in 50% (average overall 60%); some revenue sharing
        • YW embedded in 80%; $4-12/month
      • Issues
        • Illegal dumping a medium problem (average score 2.08)
        • Methods of addressing:
          • Fines, ordinances, staff collect, education, working with county constables, 10% a problem
      • Education key; incentive critical
    • CONTACT: Lisa A. Skumatz, Ph.D. Principal, SERA, Inc. 762 Eldorado Drive, Superior, CO 80027 Phone: 303/494-1178 email: [email_address] www.serainc.com And Econservation Institute Services: Integrated program planning / evaluation; PAYT, rates/program/incentives & policy analysis, workshops